When we speak a thought, then think the same thought, wouldn't that be the process of transcending thought?
And if so, wouldn't transcending thought be a common process, not necessarily what we think of as meditation? If we have a room with a table and chair in it, could "in" refer to the space that the two chairs are in. If so, could we think of being aware of a thought as focal awareness and pure awareness as the non local "space" that the thought, (say of a chair and table) are in. And if this were so, just as we can appreciate the space that the chair and table are within, without removing the chair or table, couldn't we also abide in the space of pure awareness without removing the thought, (say of a chair and table). Michael --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote: > > > > There's something fishy about what the TM'ers are measuring. > > TM says (declares) it's alpha global coherence across the > > brain that is transcending. Yet I've watched them hook > > people up who were saying they don't experience transcending > > but the researchers gloat "there, you see the alpha > > coherence when he starts the mantra! He's transcending!!" > > In my observation, "transcending" in the TM context > can refer both to the process and to the end point of > the process, depending on the context. Virtually all > TMers transcend in the first sense when they start the > mantra (actually when they close their eyes--"When we > close our eyes, naturally we feel some quietness, some > silence, yes?") > > I don't know which the folks who hook people up are > referring to, but if it's the *process*, there's no > contradiction with the meditators saying they don't > experience transcending, meaning the *end point* of > the process (no thoughts, no mantra). >
